Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Arlen Specter does the math (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Arlen Specter does the math
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
I'm encouraged that the GOP is dumping the dead wood. Besides the marginally liberal, they can get rid of the radically fringe and unwhite and have the core evangelical 20% that only serve the purpose of being an obstacle to progress, not unlike a deep pothole that everyone knows to go around.

Popular moderate Senator Arlen Spector; the one chance they had to keep a Senate seat in PA. Dead wood.

Popular "rising star" Utah governor Jon Huntsman. Dead wood.

At this rate, it looks like they're going to trim everything but the anchor from their ship.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Without taking a side, it should be noted that in the history of the world, when a government takes more control of the economic system of a country, the people in that country suffer MORE SO than if the government had not done so. And it never mattered whether the government who did so had a Republican, a Democrat, a King, a Sultan, or a Dictator in charge."

Why should this be noted? Are you implying this is true? If so, would you care to provide us some simple outline by which we might poursue this allegation and determine for ourselves how true it might be?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Without taking a side, it should be noted that in the history of the world, when a government takes more control of the economic system of a country, the people in that country suffer MORE SO than if the government had not done so."

Absolutely false when it comes to economic crises. Unless you play the "well, we can't actually KNOW what would have happened cause y'all ruined the experiment by intervening" argument.

In Israel in the mid 80's inflation reached 400%. For more than two years the entire economy was ruled by a "package deal" agreed to by the govmint and the trade union umbrella. Prices for everything were fixed. And ya know what? It worked. Within a few years we were down to single digits of inflation like a normal country. In Argentina they waited to do something similar, and until they did the people suffered.

Once the situation was under control, the package deal was expired and the thieves went back to thieving - but so the rest of us can live.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As of 1960, India and South Korea were at comparable economic levels, but by the late 1980's, South Korea's per capita income was ten times India's. India remained commited to a government controlled economy for many years after achieving independence in 1947. However in the 1990's India 'Jettisoned four decades of economic isolation and planning, and freed the country's entrepreneurs for the first time since independence'. A growth rate of 6% a year followed making it 'one of the worlds fastest growing big economies'. Before this, India's average growth rate had been 2%"

"In China, government controls were relaxed on an experimental basis in particular sectors...during the reforms of the 1980's, leading to stunning economic contrasts within the same country, as well as rapid economic growth overall. Before this, back in 1978, less than 10% of China's agricultural output was sold in open markets...by 1990, 80 percent was sold directly to the market."

There was a famous bet between the President of Ghana and the president of the Ivory Coast back in the 60's. The bet was concerning which country would be more prosperous in the years ahead. At the time Ghana was more prosperous than the Ivory Coast. It had more natural resources also. However Ghana was committed to a government run economy and the Ivory Coast had a much freer market system. By 1982 the Ivory Coast so surpassed Ghana economically, that the poorest 20% of its people had a higher real income per capita than most of the people in Ghana. The icing on the cake is what happend years later. A new generation of Ivory Coast politicians had the government control more of the country's economy, and Ghana finally learned from its mistake and began to loosen its controls. The roles reversed and Ghana's economy began to grow while that of Ivory Coast began to decline.

Burma and Thailand have similar comparisons, with Burma having a higher standard of living before instituting socialism and Thailand having a much higher standard after getting rid of it. India, Germany, China, New Zealand, South Korea, Sri Lanka- all have experienced sharp upturns in their economies "when they freed those economies from many government controls".

I am not "implying" that what I have said is true, it is true. It is not absolutely false Ricky....look at History. There are times where the government is needed to establish a start or a base on which to build things. This is usually at the very start of a country or state. The U.S. is nowhere near a "start" and the more the government gets involved with today's current setup, the more we the people will suffer.

These quotes are from the WALL STREET JOURNAL May 5th, 2006; from THE UNDERCOVER ECONOMIST by Tim Harford. ( page 3 if you really, really must see for yourself ) and from BASIC ECONOMICS by Thomas Sowell. ( pg. 26 )

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrotlin-

quote:
What history has shown us is that if the people do not use a collective government to prevent it, all wealth concentrates in the hands of a select few who declare themselves the government on the basis of the power that said wealth brings them.
If we don't use the government to be in charge then we get a government thats too much in charge?

All the wealth gets collected in the hands of a few...where has this happened where a free country and free market ideas exist? Please point to one.

The U.S. has a thing called the constitution to prevent one aspect of the government to be to powerful. Do you really believe that the CEO's of companies are going to rise up and take over the country? I doubt they would take the pay cut.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I almost always believe citations. I just like starter yeast so I can see if the prescribed dough will rise as a poster says, is all.

I will, for starters, note that 'government involvement' and 'socialism' are far from synonyms but rather, overlapping concepts.

Venn diagrams. This here would be the sort of thing that an Ev would pounce adroitly upon.

Ev is, as he puts it, a 'small c' communist, so one definitely knows where he is coming from.

That said, I think we need to think in far deeper and more nuanced terms of what government influence in economy means.

We know, for example, that merely growing an economy won;t of itself produce a satisfactory economic harvest. Indeed, laissez-faire markets tend toward hothouse excesses that experience sudden catastrophe.

I say this merely to balance the 'gov-influence=bad' theme with the 'free-hand=bad' theme so we can consider that perhaps both of them aren't all, maybe not even 1/2 of what they are too often presented to be.

Tyranny in any form typically tends to crush what it would build unless the tyrant is that rare thing: a brilliant and benevolent dictator.

Power do tend to corrupt, whatever its source.
He looked fine on that hill

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
These quotes are from the WALL STREET JOURNAL May 5th, 2006; from THE UNDERCOVER ECONOMIST by Tim Harford. ( page 3 if you really, really must see for yourself ) and from BASIC ECONOMICS by Thomas Sowell. ( pg. 26 )

It seems that all those quotes are about allowing and promoting private enterprise, not about using economic regulations to maintain a free market.

It is entirely possible to try to control an economy too tightly, but that doesn't mean that no control is any better. Regulations and redistribution are essential to an economy vital and prevent it from collapsing in favor of the first person or entity who manages to establish fundamental control of essential resources.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
you guys get up too early......

but fun reading, it is

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When president Bush spent and spent and spent, the way a typical "R" would NOT, his "R" became meaningless.
I'd like to point out that a significant portion of this "spending and spending" was initiated and approved by the Republicans in Congress.

Apparently, your "typical "R"" is not so typical when he has the opportunity...

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyro-

I never brought up anything concerning NO government. If you read my original post, I said "when a government takes more control of the economic system of a country, the people in that country suffer MORE SO than if the government had not done so." Note the use of the words "more" and "moreso". I have never, nor will I ever, state that NO government is good.

We started talking about Arlen Specter and what him being a Republican or a Democrat means. And I said that it basically means nothing. Only his votes mean something. And I also stated that we should be aware that our Leaders, whether D or R, are failing us right now, because they are NOT looking out for OUR best interests. It can't be expected that they would, they are politicians.

Those quotes are to point out the folly of the government ( one that is already established and recognized by the people of the country as the government ) intervening in the economics of the people its in charge of TOO MUCH. This relates to the topic at hand in that our leaders are allowing the government too much control over its people, ( which history HAS shown is bad for the people ) and that we should be focused more on that aspect instead of whether or not our leaders are from one party or another.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Apparently, your "typical "R"" is not so typical when he has the opportunity...
Hence the rest of my post. Maybe I could been a little clearer if I said "the way a typical R in the past..." I am not supporting Republicans or holding them blameless for anything. You guys really need to read and digest what I am posting
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am not supporting Republicans or holding them blameless for anything. You guys really need to read and digest what I am posting.
Just making sure. Right Wingers have a tendency to be rabidly outraged at the "Tax and Spend Democrats" while whistfully overlooking the "Cut-Tax and Spend Republicans" we've seen over the past eight years.

As Daruma will point out, there isn't much difference between the two. (Perhaps because of the nature of the beast of Government.)

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You guys really need to read and digest what I am posting"

Watch it with the imperatives or people will think you;re a grumpy old codger with a sense of entitlement like me.

On the other hand, imperatives are fun, cut to the chase, and blow the flotsam out of the water with a jetstream...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its exactly the "nature of the beast of Government" that I am talking about. The incentives for politicians to make the citizens number 1 priority are very small. They make themselves numero uno, we get number 2 or worse. It is the nature of politics to have this design, it really cant be helped. I believe thats why the people who created our government 200+ years ago developed term limits and things of that nature to keep a "bad" politician from reigning supreme. So it is up to us to elect someone who will give up what is best for him or her, which is to simply get elected again, IF the alternative is better for the people in that county or state or country. I am hard pressed to see any politician who fits that criteria in even the smallest way.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not knit picking wayward, but see you have already put me in the "right winger" group because of what I have said so far. And that might have been accurate some time ago, but what is considered "right wing" today by people in general is ridiculous. There used to be a time where there were good and reasonable arguments from the "left wing" and "right wing". I don't consider what I believe to be "right wing". I have pointed out some things that HAVE occurred in history, and those events seem to show what works and does not work. ( as far as economics goes ) If I look at history and use that information to determine what I believe the government should or should not do in the future, that doesn't make me "right wing", I think that makes me reasonable. =)
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The incentives for politicians to make the citizens number 1 priority are very small. They make themselves numero uno, we get number 2 or worse."

I question this and hold it for now at a distance with tongs, like an incontinent canard that might splatter my sandals.

The incentive for market forces is also for self-interest, and this is deemed good. The IH (Invisible hand) slips into our pockets, it is alleged, and gives us all magical private handjobs for the better.

Yet the Tragedy of the Commons (wiki thou this if unfamiliar) stalks the markets of the people often leaving them without pockets much less an IH or PPP (Personal Private Parts).

Markets form political entities (firms, corps, franchises, what have you) in which leaders also arise who also behave at least as selfishly as politicians and often to the detriment of their company, their customers, their communities, and even their own coffers.

TGhis either/or approach SO wearies me.

Rather than point to the biggest conglomerations on either side of the horizon and study them as the almost sole means of approaching our interests, why don't we do what scientists do and apply reductionist logic to them (and everything else between the horizons) and discern what underlying principles and components comprise their most beneficial aspects?

What makes it/them tick? What drives their engines? What does the authoritarian mountain on the east hand share in common with the docile riparian peneplain on the west?

Here I discern an important principle: free markets (or what passes for such) thrive in self-starting ways because we the people naturally involve ourselves in them. We feel it's 'ours' and so we dig in.

Politics, in the form of governing structures, however, are so grossly neglected by we the people, probably because we feel (rightly or wrongly) such little ownership, that those very institutions we the people once created as a market of political will to serve our needs, are largely abandoned to the few political entrepreneurs who'll dig in and make things happen, some of them motivated by the best intentions and wisdom, some by the worst, and mixtures thereof throughout.

I see these two examples being far more important than any left or right wing theory of politics or economy, and all these things come down to our will and ability to behave individually in common context, to manage ourselves as persons in large lumbering herds.

When it is said and done, leaning left or right and then dissing the other is scarcely about doing squat but mostly about dispensing blame as a means of relieving personal responsibility.

One good Republican pol is better than ten bad Dem pols et vice versa, and neither of them are worth much at all without the energetic support and oversight of many many many engaged citizens.

Democracy has ever suffered for lack of just that: a true citizenry. This is why arosticracy prevails and is a key component of both lib and con politics: aristocrats are, in essence, the few citizens who take it seriousloy enough to promote consequences to at least *their* liking.

Or, as Jeebus said on the Cross just before he was a bout to fade for the last time and enter whatever we think this thing called death is:

"Wadda funk of bunching whiners."

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If I look at history and use that information to determine what I believe the government should or should not do in the future, that doesn't make me "right wing", I think that makes me reasonable.
Are you defining "right wing" as "unreasonable?"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not at all. I am saying that putting me in a category of "right wing" simply because I do these things is silly. In fact you could construe what I said to "being right wing IS reasonable". But I dont mean that either. I like most of what Kenmeer just posted, although I had to sift through it so I could understand it. Perhaps I am not being concise enough on what it is I believe. I'll try to sum it up for you as best I can.

I believe that for the best for the people of any country, there has to be a balance of government power. There has to be a strong government, but limited in to what it is strong about. To say that we need a "weak" government implies that the government is not so good at what it is supposed to do. I do not want this. I want the government to be excellent at very specific things.

I believe that there has to be a strong industry for the people of the country be the best off. I believe that when the government gets TO involved with industry, the industry weakens, and therefore the people suffer. When I say suffer, I dont mean we all starve and have instant pain wracked through out bodies. I mean suffer in that the standard of living is lessened. I used the examples of China and such to show this.

A friend of mine put it very clearly: "...while we need a strong government, we also need a limited government. While it must be powerful enough to handle its important work, the limits that define that work must be strictly defined and adhered to."

And again, this should not make me "right wing" or "left wing" or "centrist". Just look at the words I am typing and decide if I am being reasonable or not.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
I never brought up anything concerning NO government. If you read my original post, I said "when a government takes more control of the economic system of a country, the people in that country suffer MORE SO than if the government had not done so." Note the use of the words "more" and "moreso". I have never, nor will I ever, state that NO government is good.

But even that's not true. Our government imposing standards for food quality improved peoples lives far more than was possible without it. Our government stepping in to support unions and impose labor standards improved peoples lives far more than would have happened without it.

It's a bad idea for government to run non-infrastructure industries, certainly. I think you'll find few here who disagree on that point. But that's different than applying the economic control necessary to keep the market free- to collectively represent consumers such that they can deal with producers on equal terms and to prevent producers from securing full control of the market.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At least part of the deal Specter cut is coming out:
quote:
Several Democrats are furious with Reid for agreeing to let Specter (Pa.) keep the seniority accrued over more than 28 years as a Republican senator. That could allow him to leap past senior Democrats on powerful panels — including the Appropriations and Judiciary committees.
For those of you that read that and don't understand the problem this creates, let Barbara explain it:
quote:
“I won’t be happy if I don’t get to chair something because of Arlen Specter,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who sits on the Appropriations Committee with Specter and is fifth in seniority among Democrats behind Chairman Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Sens. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.) and Tom Harkin (Iowa). “I’m happy with the Democratic order but I don’t want to be displaced because of Arlen Specter,” she said.
Specter could steal Harkin’s chairmanship of the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee or even repossess the chair of the powerful Judiciary Committee if current chair, Leahy, gets the chairmanship of Appropriations. What's Harkin got to say? Goes like this:
quote:
“That’s his deal and not the caucus’s,” the senior lawmaker said of Reid’s agreement with Specter.

“That can’t happen. Seniority is decided by the caucus.”

Whoopsy! Could it be Reid was talking out his ass again?

Many senate Dems (most?) say only Specter’s time in the Democratic Party should be counted to determine his seniority. That would give Specter only one day of seniority, putting him behind junior Senators like Roland Burris and Kirsten Gillibrand. Gee, ya think Arlen's going to be cool with that?

What exactly do the dems think of Arlen?
quote:
“He was a cooked goose,” said the senior Democrat. “He was going to lose to Toomey, and we were going to beat Toomey. We did him a favor by allowing him to remain in the Senate.”
This might be fun to watch ... [LOL]

[ April 30, 2009, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sure it will be, G2. Politics (especially internal party politics) is always an entertaining game.

Of course, whatever happens won't change Arlen's decision. He wasn't so much seduced by the Democrats as rejected by the Republicans.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I never thought it was very ethical when Democrats were defecting to the GOP during the Bush years. I have to judge Spector in the same light. Whether Spectore had support from the party bosses the party voters put him in in the primaries. Yeah you've got a legal right to switch parties while in office. I just think it's a little disingenous.

G2 everybody here knows that if a prominent Democrat had defected to the Republicans right now you'd be ready to kiss his feet.

[ April 30, 2009, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
G2 everybody here knows that if a prominent Democrat had defected to the Republicans right now you'd be ready to kiss his feet.

I dunno, I'm pretty jaded anymore. I find it hard to care too much about who's in what party - it's liberalism or liberalism lite. What's the difference?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Then for heaven's sake why did you start this thread?
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What would happen if all the republicans in the senate decided to switch parties? Would the democrats freak out about a hostile takeover? Would Limbaugh have a conniption fit or would he find some way to justify it and laugh about it? If Republicans changed their name to democrat but kept voting the way they've always voted would it make any meaningful difference in Washington besides there no longer being an official minority leader?

How many of the former republicans would be able to keep their senate seat when up for reelection if they hadn't changed their voting habits at all but simply changed their party name? Would a whole host of new blood come in to take their place?

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But even that's not true. Our government imposing standards for food quality improved peoples lives far more than was possible without it.
Oh yes...we have an epidemic of rampant obesity and ill health and deaths from degenerative diseases...all thanks to our corporatist/fascist governments collusion with big agricultural coproations..and you want to CREDIT them with saving lives?

Oh, my dear Pyrtolin, you ARE a useful idiot...and I say that as kindly as possible.

The government can NOT solve the problem...because the Government IS the problem!!!!

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That modern tech/abundance has created the fattest people on earth is one thing, Daruma, but patent medicines and tainted meat killed lots of people before the FDA.

Again, it's not either or.

Poles are terminal points of definition. What they define lies INBETWEEN.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That modern tech/abundance has created the fattest people on earth is one thing, Daruma, but patent medicines and tainted meat killed lots of people before the FDA.
When I call people "Sheeple" there is a very good reason for it...because too many people do as they're told without researching for themselves.

Sorry KL, but the FDA (bought and paid for by big Ag lobbyists) is largely responsible for the obesity epidemic and is has nothing to do with "abundance" and everything to do with erroneous dietary guidelines (high-carb/low-fat/pro-vegetarian) that are used by doctors, institutions and other meal planning organizations...as well as the ubiquity of poisons in the food supply - high fructose corn syrup, MSG, and other such wonderful things put into the food with the stamp of approval from the very same Government you and Pyrtolin look to for guidance and protection.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma, there was life before WWII. I understand Big AG and FDA evil; I also understand evil before these entities.

Things do trade off. Really.

I hate it when people call you a conspiracy kook, but I do wish you;d try using the setting between BLACK! and WHITE!

That's where most things attain proper focus.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, in my estimation, their is NO positive trade off when it comes governmental bureaucracy. FDA standards have nothing to do with saving people from rotten meat and contaminated food...

...and everything to do with providing monopoly advantages for the corporate interests at the expense of everyone's health.

THAT is the only real trade off here.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D: I'll grant that the FDA has been deeply gutted and corrupted, especially in recent decades.

But, you know, it has been around since the early 1900s, and things were different then.

Your world view is growing increasingly narrow.

This worries me.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
edgmatt - that in some cases governemnt intervention is less desirable than the alternative, while undeniably true, does not make your original statement any more valid than it was. Sometimes it's bad, sometimes it's necessary.

"I never brought up anything concerning NO government. If you read my original post, I said "when a government takes more control of the economic system of a country, the people in that country suffer MORE SO than if the government had not done so." Note the use of the words "more" and "moreso". I have never, nor will I ever, state that NO government is good."

Then you need to amend your original statement. Because if a country has no government control of the economic systems, and then it takes some, then by your rule that is worse than had it not done so. Ergo, no government involvement at all in the economy is best. That is the logical outcome of your rule. If you wish to qualify or amend it, please do.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
quote:
But even that's not true. Our government imposing standards for food quality improved peoples lives far more than was possible without it.
Oh yes...we have an epidemic of rampant obesity and ill health and deaths from degenerative diseases...all thanks to our corporatist/fascist governments collusion with big agricultural coproations..and you want to CREDIT them with saving lives?
You really want to go back to the days when death and disease from tainted foods was a common experience? When the Salmonella, E. Coli, and Hepatitis outbreaks that have been in the news over the past decade wouldn't have even made a footnote because they were the standard rather than the exception?

I think that you might need surgery to remove that silver spoon that you're choking on. You don't seem to be very cognizant of human history before the 50s, using it as a baseline rather than realizing that it was a transition point from a much harsher world- one that was enabled to happen by the very systems that you rail against.

Is the FDA or any similar agency perfect? Of course not. We're only 100 years or so into the experiment and don't have thousands of years of experience in applying them yet as we do more the more oppressive systems that developed under the original fully unregulated conditions. We have a lot of refining to do to get them to function perfectly, but they've at least served to get us most of the way to the ideal and away from the abuses depicted in The Jungle, which finally brought home the need for such a system.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Viking, Which D's went R during the Bush years? Only one that I can recall coming close was Lieberman who went Indep rather than R.
Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IrishTD:
Viking, Which D's went R during the Bush years? Only one that I can recall coming close was Lieberman who went Indep rather than R.

He's a little off. Two senators (Shelby and Campbell) change from Democrat to Republican after the 1994 election when the republicans took control of Congress.

There's a good rundown of the switches for the past 60 years here:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000003108166

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not during the Bush years, though. Not like you to miss such salient details, Pyrtolin.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh. You meant Jiltin' Joe. Yeah, he's a tad off, awright. Boy ain't all there.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You really want to go back to the days when death and disease from tainted foods was a common experience? When the Salmonella, E. Coli, and Hepatitis outbreaks that have been in the news over the past decade wouldn't have even made a footnote because they were the standard rather than the exception?


I think that you might need surgery to remove that silver spoon that you're choking on. You don't seem to be very cognizant of human history before the 50s, using it as a baseline rather than realizing that it was a transition point from a much harsher world- one that was enabled to happen by the very systems that you rail against.

Nah, I don't need to take the silver spoon out of my mouth, you need to take your indoctrinated head out of your ass.

The problems with food poisoning prior to the formation and empowerment of the FDA were all based on a poor understanding of sterilization, cleanliness and the lack of refrigeration technology.

quote:
Is the FDA or any similar agency perfect? Of course not. We're only 100 years or so into the experiment and don't have thousands of years of experience in applying them yet as we do more the more oppressive systems that developed under the original fully unregulated conditions.
Oh please. This is the most specious argument of all. Using this logic, one can justify any government's waste, corruption and abuse of power.

Let's see...how about taking one of the liberal's sacred cows...

Torture of prisoners in Guantanamo? Is the CIA or Military perfect? We're only 8 years or so into the war on terror and don't have thousands of years of experience in applying them yet as we do more the more interrogation systems that developed under the original conventional war conditions.

We have a lot of refining to do to get them to interrogate perfectly, but they've at least served to get us most of the way to the ideal and away from the attacks on 9/11, which finally brought home the need for interrogations in this war on terror!


Somehow, I doubt you're buying that one, eh?

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The problems with food poisoning prior to the formation and empowerment of the FDA were all based on a poor understanding of sterilization, cleanliness and the lack of refrigeration technology. "

Yes, but the answers were available for decades yet providers largely ignored them until the FDA et al kicked in.

That rule of law thing, D.

Please, PLEASE, stop losing your mind in public like this.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
The problems with food poisoning prior to the formation and empowerment of the FDA were all based on a poor understanding of sterilization, cleanliness and the lack of refrigeration technology.

All of that fairly well understood by the time the FDA was created, but it was cheaper to forgo them for food companies because there was no one to hold them actively accountable. Upton Sinclair has to infiltrate the meat packing industry to expose its practices, and they were immediately recognizable as dangerous.

quote:

Let's see...how about taking one of the liberal's sacred cows...

Torture of prisoners in Guantanamo? Is the CIA or Military perfect? We're only 8 years or so into the war on terror and don't have thousands of years of experience in applying them yet as we do more the more interrogation systems that developed under the original conventional war conditions.

We have a lot of refining to do to get them to interrogate perfectly, but they've at least served to get us most of the way to the ideal and away from the attacks on 9/11, which finally brought home the need for interrogations in this war on terror!


Somehow, I doubt you're buying that one, eh?

Comparing economic theory that has shown strong success in the century or so that it has existed to interrogation and imprisonment techniques that hit their peak in medieval times and have long been proven ineffective? Yeah, hard to see the parallel there.

The FDA needs to be reformed to make it more independent and less vulnerable to industry pressures, certainly. But the baseline effect of it forcing food producers to account for just those things that you mention as well as other slightly costly but essential processes has been undeniable. Those measures were "too expensive" to be used until the people focused their collective will into an agency who's purpose was to makes sure that not implementing them was not an option.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1